JENNIFER A. DLOUHY, WASHINGTON BUREAU |
April 4, 2011

Related Stories

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers battling the Environmental Protection Agency's new greenhouse gas rules on refineries and power plants have focused so far on stripping the EPA's power to regulate.

But Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, is pitching a new, narrower strategy with legislation that would force the agency to examine the economic consequences of its proposed rules.

Unlike more sweeping EPA bills that have polarized Capitol Hill, Olson's - set to be introduced today - could find a bipartisan middle ground

In just two pages, it lays out a new economic analysis requirement for the EPA. Under the bill, any proposed rulemaking by the agency would have to include a statement identifying any net gain or loss in domestic jobs - direct and indirect - that would result from the regulation.

The EPA also would have to provide details on how it calculated the statistics.

"If they want to make regulatory changes, they need to tell Congress and the American people how this is going to affect jobs," Olson said. "They need to give us some estimate of how it is going to affect our economy."

Olson's bill dodges the politically explosive fights on Capitol Hill over the EPA's power. House Republicans late last week were insisting that restraints on the agency be included in any final measure to fund the federal government through October.

This week, the House is expected to vote on broad legislation that would block the agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and repeal new clean air rules for refineries.

There also may be votes in the Senate this week on at least three such proposals.

The EPA has become a lightning rod for anti-regulation Republicans. They object to requirements that new or expanding power plants and refineries adopt the best available technology to control carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Along with some Rust Belt Democrats, they say the regulations would cost jobs.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Ennis, has said the mandates would cost "millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars a year."

But EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson insists her agency has a reasonable approach, focusing on facilities that emit more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Jackson also has stressed that if Congress whittles away at the agency's powers under the Clean Air Act, it would undermine a "statute that provides protection to the health of American families."

Olson said he was concerned about widely varying estimates about job loss from a federal moratorium on some deep-water exploration after last year's deadly oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.